The Case Against Capitalism

So in reality it's not an economic system but the form of government you're trying to build a case against.

 

Curious, but while the great depression has been mentioned, no one seems to have made a comment relating to the effect brought about by the creation of the Federal Reserve act, the fractional reserve banking system, fiat currency, and elimination of backing our fiat currency by gold or silver, all of which contributes to the constant inflation that has become the driving force of our economy. disparity of both wealth and income, and debts of many individuals, and government at Federal, State, and local level.

 

Capitalism is an economic system; socialism can be economic system, but also includes Government. Only the right confuses the concepts.

 

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the
inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
Winston S. Churchill

BTW: You can't have socialism without capitalism.

 

How would that work in a "divine" Commune of Heaven?

We are simply not moral enough. Socialism requires social morals for free.

 

As I said, "So in reality it's not an economic system but the form of government you're trying to build a case against."

 

Capitalism is an economic system. We still have the socialism of Government. Socialism includes both; it could be in a "holistic" manner; but, socialism requires social morals for free to work effectively, not capital morals for a price.

 

Social morals for free?

 

Can you purchase a "Stairway to Heaven".

 

this is not useful english. Does anyone know what he is trying to say??

 

You can have a Soviet-style Command Market Economy with Capitalism (private ownership of Capital). The fact that such system has never been attempted is irrelevant.

If select Chinese businesses are truly private and not merely a front for the government, then yes.

Because the government (and other groups and associations) have interfered.

Your argument is sophistry. You admit there is no Free Market, while simultaneously condemning the Free Market.

Free Market does not mean free to lie, cheat, misrepresent, engage in fraud or other activities. It's perfectly permissible to enact passive regulations to deter fraud and abuse.

Current regulations go far beyond that, restricting competition or penalizing smaller competitors.

So you know better than anyone how a given parcel of Land should be used?

There are no possible alternatives to Capitalism, except for Socialism or Communism.

Socialism would never direct land to the production of organic crops because it's either not in the government's best interest or not the best interest of any private group, like Big Business or Big Agro-Business.

Communism, leaving it up to the people-at-large to decide, will result in nothing happening very slowly, not to mention an ignorant electorate is incapable of understanding long-range or future impacts of their decisions.

Profit is necessary for any Economic System.

The Laws of Economics prohibit waste and punish attempts to create waste or inefficiency through lower revenues, lower profits, or both lower revenues and lower profits.

1] What goods shall we produce or services shall we provide?

Each and every time a Consumer engages in a business transaction, they are satisfying needs in Maslow's Hierarchy.

Shall we produce corn? Who decides? The Free Market is best to decide. The Free Market consists of consumers who demand corn; therefore corn should be produced. The Capitalist Property Theory says that Capitalists will immediately shift Capital to the production of corn to meet Consumer demand.

Then eliminate the regulations that give then that power, and eliminate the politicians that enact such regulations.

What would you have? Some government bureaucracy deciding if corn should be produced?

It is you who allow the oligopolies to exist.

You are your own


2] How shall we produce such goods or provide such services?

Again, ownership is ultimately limited to private individuals (Capitalists), government or oligarchies (Corporatists) or the people-at-large.

How shall corn be produced? Traditional farming methods? Organic farming methods? Genetically modified corn?

Again, the Free Market consisting of Consumers makes the decision. If the Free Market demands GMO corn, then so be it, but if the Market demands organic corn, then Capitalists will shift Capital to the production of organic corn.

You.

You elect the politicians who write the laws that require GMO labeling.

Again, the Free Market does not mean freedom to lie, commit fraud or other criminal acts. People lie, cheat, steal, misrepresent or engage in fraud, that's what people do. Where ever people exist in any system, you need passive regulations to combat abuses.

The fact that you have failed to elect politicians that will enact regulations to combat abuses is a failure on your part, not a failure of the Free Market or Capitalism.

What would you have, some bureaucratic government committee deciding if we should have organic corn or not?

The Consumers are the Free Market

3] For whom shall we produce such goods and services?

Then you are saying that you want the Free Market to decide.



Again, the Free Market of Consumers decides. There are Markets for corn in the husk, corn on the cob, coblets, canned corn, creamed corn, succotash, corn for feed, corn for seed, popcorn, corn for alcoholic beverages and corn for light corn syrup, corn for dark corn syrup, corn for corn starch, corn flour, corn meal, corn flakes, high fructose corn syrup and corn for ethanol fuels.

But it is you who allow the Oligopolies to exist.

That is a failure on your part, not a failure of the Free Market or Capitalism.

The Free Market Economic System paired with Capitalist Property Theory is superior.

The alternatives cost more.

 

you mean; you have no useful rebuttals and have to resort to fallacy, such as diversion.

 

The best I've been able to determine is that he feels existing is an occupation deserving an income.

Personally, I've yet to see any case being made against capitalism as an economic system but more of a case being made against how our government is being fundamentally changed by reinterpretation of our Constitution taking power from the individuals who make up our societies by those we elect to Federal office and those who are appointed/employed by Federal agencies who then create rules fitting their agenda.

 

Yes.


.​

 

No, he means your words are gibberish.



​

 

I thought he was referring to the movie with David Niven but that's probably long before his time, and you're correct, that which exists can usually be purchased thanks to capitalism and a somewhat free market.

 

In a divine Commune of Heaven?

- - - Updated - - -

what y'all actually mean; is that you don't have a clue or a Cause, and that is why you think it is gibberish.

 

why not try to say it in good English so we can understand you? Instead of being cute just say I am a communist becuase...........................

 

I can't be a communist simply Because, I am not that Good. Even socialism requires social morals used for Goodness and not Badness, for free.

 

sorry but that's total gibberish not English.

 

Goodness and Badness not really a moral concept, to the right?

 

what??????????????

 

thank you for confirming what i merely suspected.

 

gibberish. Why not learn english??

 

You're mistaken. We mean you are speaking gibberish.

At this point, I"m starting to think you are a computer program printing random words.



​